As the scandal involving Ergun Caner continues (if you are unfamiliar with the situation then a quick Google search or this article (http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/05/ergun-mehmet-caner-another-ex-terrorist-exposed/) from an outside observer should fill you in) the damage being caused is growing.  What started as embellishments in Dr. Caner's testimony has grown into a network of lies and unconfessed sin and continues to cause harm to the body of Christ.

Pastor Tom Chantry (http://crbcviews.blogspot.com/) has raised valid concerns over the pulpit tactics of many evangelical churches where speakers share personal stories and exude a celebrity persona rather than faithfully exegete the text of Scripture.  We all have a responsibility not to promote this behaviour in Christian circles.
Dr. James White (http://aomin.org/) has raised valid concerns that Muslims witness this and see through the lies and attribute such tactics to Christianity in general.  He also stresses that truth and consistency is vital and I fully agree.
Pastor Wade Burleson (http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/) writes that this has tarnished Liberty University and he can no longer recommend students to attend there.

What has also struck me (and has been alluded to by others) is how renowned Christian apologists Norman Geisler (http://www.normangeisler.net/) and to a lesser extent John Ankerberg (http://ankerberg.com/) have defended the lies of Ergun Caner in opposition to a mountain of evidence.  Legal documents, video, and audio recordings all demonstrate Caner being caught in a web of lies concerning his past.

These two men have written many books and articles defending the Christian faith and demonstrating that the evidence supports Christian belief and does not contradict it.  But what we have in this case is both of these men wanting us to believe them contrary to clear, current and irrefutable evidence.  We can see that their bias and friendship is keeping them from seeing the evidence for what it so clearly shows.  What does this do to their reputation?  To their previous works defending the Christian truth claims?

What it does is call their past work into question.  If they can stare the facts in the face (assuming they have seen the evidence against Ergun Caner) and pass off the evidence as simple "misstatements" then how could they be trusted in dealing with evidence concerning other matters?  They can't.  Which leads to a number of problems.

To those people who are not Christian, this proves to them that Christians are dishonest with the facts.  Why believe the claim that evidence supports the resurrection of Christ, when they've been so blind to the evidence in this case?  To those who are Christian, how do we know that Dr. Geisler was dealing truthfully with Scripture when he wrote books like "Chosen But Free", was he blinded by his bias and unable to deal with Scripture accurately and consistently?

Even if we grant that they haven't looked closely at the evidence against Ergun Caner, how can we suppose they've looked closely at the evidence concerning their apologetic works?  Maybe they missed evidence crucial to their topic?

While we do not want to invalidate their past works by this one incident, it does force us to be more critical then normal when dealing with their past works.  Perhaps not even consulting them at all but instead consulting others who have a better track record of being a more reliable source.

We all have a bias, no doubt about it; but the task of someone dealing with evidence is to try and understand their own bias so we can interpret the evidence as truthfully as possible.  The ability to do this is necessary for an apologist.  I'm afraid that in this case Normal Geisler and John Ankerberg have shown that their bias can get the better of them and blind them of the truth.

Truth in all areas of life is the Christian way, and repentance must follow when we sin.  Many Christians and non-Christians are watching this ordeal and I'm afraid as the sin of one man festers, Christendom as a whole suffers.